Passing notes at the table

[Mercule]

I usually do.

As GM, I pass a lot of notes. One of the PCs has a telepathic sword that the other PCs don't trust, so I play that up. One of the PCs is a warlock/rogue who is usually not doing anything wrong, but often suspected of it. Play that up, too. Or, just someone entering a room alone, teleporting, or otherwise being away from the rest of the group for some major event. That definitely gets a few notes.

As a side comment, there are no notes that the GM cannot read. Even between two players. Nothing gets me hotter (as GM or player) than players trying to be oppositional to the GM. Okay, physical abuse, porn, smoking meth at the table might all vex me more, but I haven't had to deal with those.

 

[Nifft]

I've never stopped it. Also, I've never seen it.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Piratecat]

Yes, but no one ever does it.

Dude, we've played Paranoia together. You SO lie.

 

[GQuail]

I allow it, although more likely I would take a player out for a quick chat out of the party's earshot if they wanted to discuss something. It's something to be kept to a minimum, though, because it can quickly bore the rest of the group and slow things to a crawl.

My girlfriend does sometimes hand me notes marked "Snoozy" and "Hurry up and end this, I need to scratch my bum so bad"

 

[Kralin Thornberry]

Yes, although often it's between GM and player rather than between players (though I've had that, too).

I'd rather everyone have laptops, a LAN and instant messaging to do this, but my group isn't properly equipped - yet.

I encourage note passing between GM/Players, and if the place we game were set up correctly/wirelessly, I'm sure we'd all be IMing instead of note tossing

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I'm always a bit surprised at the notion that D&D is a team/cooperation oriented game. Why do you see it that way?

I see it as a roleplaying game. You take on the roles of certain characters. Characters may or may not work well together or get along. In fact, some level of intergroup tension can be much more interesting than any other conflict you've got going on half the time anyway.

Maybe it's because I've always approached RPGs as attempting to replicate (to some extent) books, movies, TV shows, etc. rather than be tactical miniatures games, but I've never really grokked the whole idea in the first place.

I do not grok your lack of grokking. Perhaps because I have no more interest in books, movies, TV shows etc where there is a team of people but they don't work together or have a "plotting" level of intergroup tension than I do in a PvP rpg.

The most basic plot of a D&D game is that a small group of people fight things together then take turns watching over the rest while they sleep in shifts. Maybe it doesn't have to be a team game, maybe you are just so over non competitiveness, but "surprised by the notion"? Can't help you there, except to say "Hobo, meet a few decades of "The Party"; a few decades of "The Party", meet Hobo, dunno how you two crazy kids managed not to run into each other."

 

[DragonLancer]

Do you allow note passing at the table when you DM?

No. I stopped allowing that a number of years ago. It slowed down the game and players would use it as an excuse to do questionable acts that the others wouldn't know about rather than roleplay it. YMMV.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

Yes, as long as it doesn't get out of control. In almost all cases it has been between the DM and a player (in either direction) although the players have passed notes around between themselves a couple of times.

If I was running a game of Paranoia I would be very disappointed if there wasn't a lot of note passing going around though!

Olaf the Stout

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm always a bit surprised at the notion that D&D is a team/cooperation oriented game. Why do you see it that way?

"With a few trusted allies at your side, you explore ruins and monster-filled dungeons in search of treasure."

I see it as a roleplaying game. You take on the roles of certain characters. Characters may or may not work well together or get along. In fact, some level of intergroup tension can be much more interesting than any other conflict you've got going on half the time anyway.

Maybe it's because I've always approached RPGs as attempting to replicate (to some extent) books, movies, TV shows, etc. rather than be tactical miniatures games, but I've never really grokked the whole idea in the first place.

D&D's more gamist than simulationist.

Though player-versus-player conflict isn't tied to simulationism. The storytelling approach merely leaves it open as a possibility. You could have games with no story at all that just feature PCs whacking lumps out of each other for no reason.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm always a bit surprised at the notion that D&D is a team/cooperation oriented game. Why do you see it that way?

"Co-operation amongst party members is a major key to success... survival at lower levels is usually dependent upon group action and team spirit. Co-operation must begin when the party prepares for the adventure and continue through safe return to base and division of spoils"